Tucker Carlson, and comments on the history of FOX

[oxmixmudd]

Having worked for someone for a short time who had a radio talk show (which later became a successful nationally syndicated one) I can remember him repeatedly saying how his job was first and foremost to be an entertainer and occasionally say something controversial in order to provoke a reaction. I always take what talk show personalities say with a grain of salt.

??? It's ok to have a radio program whose sole goal is to see just how low they can go before the FCC takes their license? Or course, that's all 'reality' TV is as well, but it doesn't make it 'ok'?!

But we are going to say 'hey, that's fine' as Christians?


Jim

[rogue06]

??? It's ok to have a radio program whose sole goal is to see just how low they can go before the FCC takes their license? Or course, that's all 'reality' TV is as well, but it doesn't make it 'ok'?!

But we are going to say 'hey, that's fine' as Christians?


Jim

Considering that the one I was referring to later became a successful nationally syndicated one I'm pretty sure that was not what I said nor implied.

[Mountain Man]

The video was originally pushed out against her by a right wing user affiliated with QAnon. That is how it came to be known as an attempted attack on her by the right. Someone on the right dug up what they thought was dirt and slung it.

Source: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-ocasio-cortez-video-20190104-story.html

A Twitter user that affiliates itself with the far-right conspiracy theorist QAnon posted the video with the caption: “Here is America’s favorite commie know-it-all acting like the clueless nitwit she is...”

© Copyright Original Source

You do realize that "QAnon" is a troll account that nobody takes seriously, right? It's essentially like 4chan. For all we know, it's run by a bunch of liberals.

I picked 3 things. One a scandal. One more of a dirt digging thing but still a problem for Kerry.

The Clinton scandal was uncovered by an independent counsel during a criminal investigation, and the Kerry thing was uncovered when veterans who served with Kerry called him out on lies he told on the campaign trial about his service record. This wasn't stuff buried in a long-forgotten radio archive.

[oxmixmudd]

You do realize that "QAnon" is a troll account that nobody takes seriously, right? It's essentially like 4chan. For all we know, it's run by a bunch of liberals.

So thats the story now? How about that. It was all the rage with trump supporters early on. Honestly,MM - you change colors like the wind. Whatever is best for supporting Trump. There was a bit of a symbiotic relationship between Trump/Trump supporters and QAnon for a while . I guess it got unpopular somewhere along the way? Hard to keep up with all the changes in the trump base clans opportunistic approaches to what they support and what they don't.

The Clinton scandal was uncovered by an independent counsel during a criminal investigation, and the Kerry thing was uncovered when veterans who served with Kerry called him out on lies he told on the campaign trial about his service record. This wasn't stuff buried in a long-forgotten radio archive.

And? Does it really matter how it was uncovered? Someone went looking for dirt, or just found dirt by accident. And there it goes. And if its against someone you don't like, you are ALL for it. But when it's against someone you like (or from a source you don't like) it's all bad and how dare they.

And just like pix - you are all over the map here. Don't like one implication, change the subject to something else. We were arguing about whether or not it was reasonable to go after this data on Carlson. Not so good cause its public. Then the content is 'no big deal' ... except it is a big deal. Along the way there was, "but it's only the Democrats doing it this way", that doesn't fly so well, so now its what kind of dirt and who went after it and when. Oh yeah, and don't forget the attempt to say I aught not yell too loud because somewhere deep in my past I did something similar.

Back to the real world. Carlson should have known better. It's a matter of public record and not hard to find. It was really pretty nasty. And now it has come back to haunt him.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

So thats the story now? How about that. It was all the rage with trump supporters early on. Honestly,MM - you change colors like the wind.

I have no idea what you're talking about. When have I ever referenced or endorsed "QAnon"? There's a fringe element that might take the group seriously, but in my experience, most people don't, even among Trump supporters.

Does it really matter how it was uncovered?

Yes.

[Catholicity]

I like this idea that anybody in the public eye is supposed to have lived a perfect life prior to becoming famous. Unless you're a liberal like Joy Reid, and then you can say the most hateful, bigoted things imaginable and get a pass.

Mountain Man, He did this while he was a syndicated broadcaster at MSNBC and Fox News. He was already in the public's eye. I mean hello?

[mikewhitney]

Mike, he said women were extremely primitive, he felt sorry for unattractive women, then utilized the horrific word for a woman's below parts to describe women. He also essentially defended Warren Jeffs. Misogyny is defined as the hatred, contempt or prejudice against women. And in saying those things, he showed sexual discrimination which is extremely prejudicial and yes fits prejudice since women are clearly only sex objects. Societally its hateful. I know of no reason why these comments are in anyway defensible under any biblical rule and I know of know reason why anyone who even remotely declares themsseves a reader of the Bible would be defending Carlson.

Can we defend free speech?

And can we be concerned that groups are purposely trying to defund any opposition to a communist agenda?

It seems that the freedom of our country depends on having the ability to have multiple voices heard. Most attempts to short-circuit such debate seems more of a problem than anything Carlson has said.

Nor have the quotes always seemed to be presented in context. So people are just being fed what the misnamed Media Matters group wants people to see/hear.

We need to protect our minds from being infected by things improperly emphasized by the media.

We also have to have to have the strength not to be offended by every negative point brought up about things in the past. Many of the things quoted were of political nature ... or of misunderstandings.

It is foolish to imagine we live in a puritanical nation.

Beyond this, I'm not sure if I appreciate all that Carlson has said in the past.

...
But I must confess that I have listened to people who use bad language but still found that their messages were worthwhile to be heard.

[Catholicity]

I have no idea what you're talking about. When have I ever referenced or endorsed "QAnon"? There's a fringe element that might take the group seriously, but in my experience, most people don't, even among Trump supporters.


Yes.

It's kinda strange how in other forums you are all for digging up supposed but VERY unconfirmed and apparently false allegations as far as can be seen that Ihlan Omar might have potentially married a relative. That is definitely digging and would be looking for dirt to discredit her. This is something someone went on national radio and said some very disgusting things that are frankly and likely being passed around somewhere on the internet as reruns given that bubba the lovesponge gets re aired every so often. And finding the transcripts of the broadcast is even easier than say checking for someone's non existant familial marriage

[Catholicity]

Can we defend free speech?

And can we be concerned that groups are purposely trying to defund any opposition to a communist agenda?

It seems that the freedom of our country depends on having the ability to have multiple voices heard. Most attempts to short-circuit such debate seems more of a problem than anything Carlson has said.

Nor have the quotes always seemed to be presented in context. So people are just being fed what the misnamed Media Matters group wants people to see/hear.

We need to protect our minds from being infected by things improperly emphasized by the media.

We also have to have to have the strength not to be offended by every negative point brought up about things in the past. Many of the things quoted were of political nature ... or of misunderstandings.

It is foolish to imagine we live in a puritanical nation.

Beyond this, I'm not sure if I appreciate all that Carlson has said in the past.

How do you defend the things someone would say that essentially would get them pegged for a pedophile mike? It doesn't matter if it falls under "non censored speech" You can't expect to be on a shock jock show and say things so nasty that even the shock jock corrects you then not expect to meet some kind of critcism or censuring for it. Mike the FCC censors child porn as it does NOT fall under free speech. Frankly Carlson stated that statutory rape wasn't a crime and if someone published that in a book or wrote a show about it the FCC censors wouldn't give it free speech or any kind of pass, they'd give it a fine and pull it.

[mikewhitney]

How do you defend the things someone would say that essentially would get them pegged for a pedophile mike? It doesn't matter if it falls under "non censored speech" You can't expect to be on a shock jock show and say things so nasty that even the shock jock corrects you then not expect to meet some kind of critcism or censuring for it. Mike the FCC censors child porn as it does NOT fall under free speech. Frankly Carlson stated that statutory rape wasn't a crime and if someone published that in a book or wrote a show about it the FCC censors wouldn't give it free speech or any kind of pass, they'd give it a fine and pull it.

The quick scan of that discussion (that I think underlies your concern) just seemed to complain about equating young marriage with rape of children -- and Carlson corrected himself saying " I got myself in a position that seem like I'm defending it, because I am against that. "

Edited in:
haha. Just like my attempt to discuss it here.

I had in mind that some marriages may be reasonably approved for someone otherwise considered underage. I wouldn't endorse some mail-order-bride service or anything else that promotes such activity for under-age people. (I probably wouldn't endorse many underage weddings either.)

[oxmixmudd]

Can we defend free speech?

And can we be concerned that groups are purposely trying to defund any opposition to a communist agenda?

It seems that the freedom of our country depends on having the ability to have multiple voices heard. Most attempts to short-circuit such debate seems more of a problem than anything Carlson has said.

Nor have the quotes always seemed to be presented in context. So people are just being fed what the misnamed Media Matters group wants people to see/hear.

We need to protect our minds from being infected by things improperly emphasized by the media.

We also have to have to have the strength not to be offended by every negative point brought up about things in the past. Many of the things quoted were of political nature ... or of misunderstandings.

It is foolish to imagine we live in a puritanical nation.

Beyond this, I'm not sure if I appreciate all that Carlson has said in the past.

...
But I must confess that I have listened to people who use bad language but still found that their messages were worthwhile to be heard.

This is not political speech. This is vulgar speech. And there is nothing that says you are entitled to say anything you want and your employer has to keep you on. Most employers care about their overall reputation (wanting to make a profit and all) and have clauses in the employment contract that puts limits on what you can do if it reflects badly on the company itself.


Jim

[mikewhitney]

This is not political speech. This is vulgar speech. And there is nothing that says you are entitled to say anything you want and your employer has to keep you on. Most employers care about their overall reputation (wanting to make a profit and all) and have clauses in the employment contract that puts limits on what you can do if it reflects badly on the company itself.


Jim

Sorry, I guess I missed it. It didn't seem like they fired him after saying that stuff.

Did you know that sometimes people will get fired on TV or Radio for saying something wrong? and sometimes they are reprimanded and allowed to keep working?

Edited in:
I guess you thought I was promoting Carlson's freedom of speech. To some degree this is accurate. But my complaint was that Media Matters isn't concerned about your point concerning vulgar language; instead they seem interested in disabling non-leftist speech -- and thus weakening the ability for discussion, informing and debate on political concerns. In this action by Media Matters, they have expressed their own vulgar tactics which act against the American people.

We can't even survive well if people in this country are so easily offended.
In a different vein, it seems like this nation is training up multitudes of nitpickers -- which is self-destructive.

[NorrinRadd]

Mike, he said women were extremely primitive, ...

Do you get your undies in a similar wad each of the thousands of times men are jokingly referred to as apes, cave men, pigs, etc.?

he felt sorry for unattractive women, ...

Why is it bad to acknowledge the reality that our society values physical attractiveness, and women are probably disproportionately advantaged or disadvantaged on the basis thereof?

then utilized the horrific word for a woman's below parts to describe women.

Specifically the "c-word," as opposed to the "t-word" or "p-word." Not sure why that one in particular is more "horrific," but that seems to be the cultural convention. He also said he doesn't commonly use that word because he finds it distasteful (or something to that effect).

Do you have a similar hissy fit when MEN are referred to by vulgar terms for OUR "below parts," such as the "d-word" or our version of the "c-word"? I hope you are not a sexist hypocrite.

He also essentially defended Warren Jeffs.

No, he made a distinction between two different kinds of distasteful behavior. It's a case of questioning cases of supposed moral equivalency and the standards of our justice system. He does that. For instance, while in no way denying that Paul Manafort is a criminal who deserves punishment, he defended the relatively small sentence in part by noting that the maximum would be comparable to the penalty for murder in most of the U.S.; one questions how a white-collar crime -- even multiple counts -- with no violence or threat of violence justifies a sentence comparable to that for murder.

Misogyny is defined as the hatred, contempt or prejudice against women. And in saying those things, he showed sexual discrimination which is extremely prejudicial and yes fits prejudice since women are clearly only sex objects.

Could you point to specific quotes you are interpreting that way?

Societally its hateful. I know of no reason why these comments are in anyway defensible under any biblical rule and I know of know reason why anyone who even remotely declares themsseves a reader of the Bible would be defending Carlson.

I defend his right to say obnoxious things to provoke discussion. I defend his right to say "blank you" to anyone who demands he apologize for things said a decade or more ago.

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry, I guess I missed it. It didn't seem like they fired him after saying that stuff.

Did you know that sometimes people will get fired on TV or Radio for saying something wrong? and sometimes they are reprimanded and allowed to keep working?

Edited in:
I guess you thought I was promoting Carlson's freedom of speech. To some degree this is accurate. But my complaint was that Media Matters isn't concerned about your point concerning vulgar language; instead they seem interested in disabling non-leftist speech -- and thus weakening the ability for discussion, informing and debate on political concerns. In this action by Media Matters, they have expressed their own vulgar tactics which act against the American people.

We actually agree here. Although I don't see the issue as being 1 sided (media matters is a symptom of a much larger problem that is endemic to the endpoints of 'liberal' and 'conservative'.) Hence my points about the more recent amplification of the polarization and overall incivility of our discussion of ideas that can be correlated to the 2016 campaign and its players.

We can't even survive well if people in this country are so easily offended.
In a different vein, it seems like this nation is training up multitudes of nitpickers -- which is self-destructive.

We agree again!

[Tassman]

I defend his right to say obnoxious things to provoke discussion. I defend his right to say "blank you" to anyone who demands he apologize for things said a decade or more ago.

Just as I defend the right of those who find these "obnoxious things" utterly offensive and to regard their perpetrator with contempt.